Intermedia Cable Communication Pvt. Ltd vs Zee Entertainment Enterprise Ltd

Learned Counsel for both side are present. Heard at length. While quoting the order of this Tribunal dated 18.05.2017, it came to notice that the order is having mentioned that disconnection by Respondent was made at 5:30 p.m. on 20.10.2016.  In next para, it is there that it was disconnected on 29.10.2016. Whereas, in the circumstances and directions given thereunder at item No. 3, the date of disconnection has been given to be 28.11.2016. All these three dates are not in consonance with each other. It is being said to be a typographical error, but while deciding the lis, and passing a judgment, this fact is to be specified as to whether disconnection was on which date?

The second direction was with regard to reconciliation and both parties were directed to reconcile the accounts, giving details related to the basis of invoices, credits, discounts and payments made etc. This was directed to be done within two weeks. Learned Counsel for Petitioner mentioned that this direction was not complied with. Whereas for adjudication, this reconciliation and bringing of accounts and facts are must. But Mr. Upender Thakur, counsel for Respondent mentioned that this reconciliation exercise was done and it is there in the orders passed by this Tribunal itself. As this direction is to be complied for proper adjudication of this lis, this Tribunal is to adjudicate as to how much amount is due, and in which head and how much is to be directed to be paid in case of any direction with that regard?

Hence, Learned Counsel for Respondent as well as Petitioner is being directed to file an affidavit specifying as to whether this direction with regard to reconciliation was complied with or not and if reconciliation is there, then details of accounts, specifying heads, along with specification of invoices raised, and confronted, be filed, within two weeks.

The matter was brought before this Tribunal by way of BP No. 382 of 2016 and two other petitions connected together. Whereas the judgement of this Tribunal, which is the crux and being said to be the basis of alleged contradiction with regard to present RIO under dispute, was of year 2015 i.e. It was a bit early to present petition. Hence, the date of its effect and scenario at the date of filing of these petitions are to be specified and specifically argued by Learned Counsel for both side for appreciation and adjudication of lis in these matters.

There is a direction for payment of cost and re-giving of signals and this being said to be acted upon, but when it was acted upon, is not specified. This being said by Learned Counsel for Respondent that on the date, file was reserved for order for these M.As., in compliance of oral directions, it was complied with. But nothing is there in Black and White to show on record that this direction was complied with and when this was complied with. For proper adjudication, this fact is also to be brought on record. Hence, this be also specified in above affidavit to be filed, by both sides.

List the matter ‘for final arguments’ on 12.09.2023.